Discussion in 'Cars, cycling and transport' started by RichInSpirit, Feb 16, 2018.
Nuclear power stations...simples
What is the damage to local environments?
Wind turbine syndrome, you know, like the opposite of the placebo effect where cranks convince themselves the presence of turbines is damaging their health so much they make themselves ill.
But that's not damage to the environment.
I'm guessing Werner is talking about the damage done to the environment during installation of wind turbines. I have seen evidence of flooding in areas which has been linked to the installation of wind turbines. I'm not sure how proven the link is but at least I'm guessing that is the damage being referred to here.
Which is one aspect of environmental damage. Given the number of wind-farms you have visited, live in proximity to and studied, what aspect of turbine farm operation is most likely to damage human health and well-being?
For a serious overview, from multiple perspectives, rather than your unwarranted flippancy about a serious matter, have a look here: http://www.windawareireland.com/environmental-issues/
Unfortunately, electricity from the wind farms won't magic itself to the nearest distribution point so underground ducting and cabling features in these developments as do access roads and site navigation tracks, none of which get added to the appalling environmental damage windfarms cause.
Concrete features heavily in these developments, foundations, concrete ducting, paths, roadways, etc. and the cement industry contributes in excess of 5% of all CO2 worldwide. Conversely concrete may help reduce air-borne sulfur dioxide, a source of acid rain, by a small amount.
For @Leo "Assessing the effects of wind turbines on human health is an emerging field and conducting further research into the effects of wind turbines (and environmental changes) on human health, emotional and physical, is warranted." The scientific view is less dismissive than yours. I'll maybe stick with the science, although this is only one of many such studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179699/
In my opinion it is the only source of energy which can viably replace burning hydrocarbons.
Fusion may be here within the next 30 years. If so then we will have access to almost limitless energy.
I like wind turbines and solar and wave power are a nice idea but only nuclear power provides a relatively safe and environmentally friendly option.
Why are solar and wave power not safe and environmentally friendly?
Not particularly environmentally friendly and they certainly aren't viable options to replace hydrocarbons any time soon.
It is interesting that so much attention is given to car emissions, particularly the emissions from diesel cars, when the largest 16 container ships in the world emit as much sulphur as all the cars in the world; a large container ship currently emits as much as 50 million cars.
Different kinds of pollutants though -- sulfur is only one of them. And it is getting lots of attention -- marine bunker fuel is switching over to a low sulfur variety in 2020 so will be a thing of the past soon.
Agree with you here. And MIT SPARC is only one of at least half a dozen serious commercial fusion efforts at the moment. Still a lot of hurdles to clear, but I'm quite optimistic about a credible fusion demo within a decade or so, well ahead of ITER.
I thought that was only in harbours (as is the case in the EU now). China has changed it's omission standards for cars, reducing amount of sulphur emissions by cars from 50 to 10 ppm. That means the figure changes from 50 million cars to 93 million cars. N02 pollution levels from chips are similar to sulphur. It's not a good comparison though as car pollute where people live, ships less so.
Hopefully there is a rational rather than ideological response from the public.
No, there's still a difference between the global limits and emission control areas, but the new global limit will be 0.5% (down from 3.5%), lower than the ECA limit of 1.5% up to 2010 (but which is now down to 0.1% since 2015).
Hopefully, though I'd have my concerns. There's still a low level of waste from fusion, from activation of shielding by fast neutrons*. And the most likely fuel includes tritium which must be initially produced from more conventional reactors**. Both of these problems are miniscule in the overall scheme of things, but never underestimate mass hysteria.
* unless we hit the Holy Grail of aneutronic fusion.
** ... but can than be bred from a lithium blanket in the fusor
Pretty much in line with what I was referring to. From your link:
We are a long way off from even approaching getting any reactor to 6.6 billion degrees Celsius (or 1.1 Billion under pressure confinement). The whole technology is really exciting though.
For that reason, aneutronic fusion is unlikely in the thermalised environment of a tokamak. But you have the non-Maxwellian regime in a Polywell, and focused laser approaches, that could conceivably come to fruition. I suppose it wouldn't be the Holy Grail if it was easy!
But I'd happily take tokamak fusion with a conventional water boiler and a bit of short half-life low-level waste. Even that would start Agricultural+Industrial Revolution 2.0.
To the layman that's suspending plasma hotter than the sun in a doughnut (torus) shape using magnetic fields. Yea, it's really cool technology but really needs to be stable.
This looks very promising for electric cars:
Write up here:
A few of these strips on our main motorways (which could be tolled) would ease range anxiety in a big way...
I had that technology decades ago. Big boys Scalextric, well done Sweden.
Separate names with a comma.